[Blue Boat]

Quote:

http://www.innerfidelity.com/images/MonsterBeatsSoloHD.pdf
 
This basically explains why I don't like Beats. They measure terribly, like headphones that cost significantly less money. The Monster Beats Solo HD measures worse than a $20 headphone -- not even joking. It can't render the sound waves close to correctly at all, there is a horrible THD+noise, the channels are terribly matched which implies terrible quality control. There are headphones for cheaper that have even more bass punch than the Beats, like many mentioned in this thread, while also not completely failing at the raw measurements. Beats succeeds are having amazing marketing while also having one of the worst price-to-performance products in the headphone world.  

You listening to music or measurements brah?
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

You listening to music or measurements brah?

When you're listening to music, you're listening to it through headphones, and you're listening to that headphone's flaws. In the case of those measurements, you're hearing more flaws than music.
 
The Beats Pro are better, at least.

 

[LizardKing1]

Measurements tell you what your music will sound like. If something measures well, it sounds good - I'm not saying it will sound good for YOU, or that you will enjoy it - just that it sounds good. Of course if someone only wants bass, I doubt the graphs will matter anything. But there's nothing wrong with backing up your subjective impressions with some objective measurements. Also, graphs are great to predict what a headphone will sound like if you happen to live somewhere where there are basically only sub-60$ headphones and it's not like you can walk into a Best Buy and try everything

 

[Blue Boat]

Idno about you objectivists, but how I decide whether a headphone sounds good is by first auditioning it (with various tracks). After that it's build quality, aesthetics, etc. Specs and charts come in later. In fact, they don't really matter that much in my decision making process. Some numbers published on spec sheets are not genuine (as proved by the O2 designer) and the degree of the "flaw" also matters (audible/inaudible). 
 
I quoted Sanji because he's never heard the Beats in question but he hates them: reason being they measure poorly. This annoys me as much as people who go around recommending the D2000, M50, HD600, etc, without having heard them in the first place. 
 
 
 
 

 

[Head Injury]

Quote:

Idno about you objectivists, but how I decide whether a headphone sounds good is by first auditioning it (with various tracks). After that it's build quality, aesthetics, etc. Specs and charts come in later. In fact, they don't really matter that much in my decision making process. Some numbers published on spec sheets are not genuine (as proved by the O2 designer) and the degree of the "flaw" also matters (audible/inaudible). 
 
I quoted Sanji because he's never heard the Beats in question but he hates them: reason being they measure poorly. This annoys me as much as people who go around recommending the D2000, M50, HD600, etc, without having heard them in the first place. 

Are you suggesting the Solo HD could be considered quality with those measurements? You might like them, but they aren't good headphones. You can make a judgment like that with objective data, which is what's so useful about it.

 

[Blue Boat]

Quote:

Are you suggesting the Solo HD could be considered quality with those measurements? You might like them, but they aren't good headphones. You can make a judgment like that with objective data, which is what's so useful about it.

If you like them, then to you, it's good.
 
But objectively, it sucks.  
 
But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no?
 
And since you're the one wearing the headphones, you're the ultimate judge.
 
Not some spec data sheet. 
 
 
 
At least that's how I see it. 

 

[nikp]

Quote:

If you like them, then to you, it's good.
 
But objectively, it sucks.  
 
But then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no?
 
And since you're the one wearing the headphones, you're the ultimate judge.
 
Not some spec data sheet. 
 
 
 
At least that's how I see it. 

Reminds me of Prince Charles and Princess Diana/Camilla. 

 

[LizardKing1]

I have to agree. In the end what matters is you enjoying it. But why do we have to separate that into subjectivists vs. objectivists? What is this, Griffyndor and Slytherin? I'm an objectivist in a way that I believe charts give me very straightforward and comparable data about headphones, and I'm subjectivist in a way that what I want is an emotional appreciation of headphones. I'm not one only, that's stupid.
 
A pure subjectivist will believe a silver USB cable produces a "slightly sweeter midrange with more extended treble" without ever understanding that's nothing but placebo created by price expectation and that USB cables either work or don't. A pure objectivist will insist that an amp is good because it measures well without ever stopping to think if he actually enjoys that, or if a certain point graphs matter more than music. You don't have to pick a team, because guess what - if something measures well, it also sounds good! :shock: the only exception I know of are tube amps, which are said to be amazing even though they produce lots of distortion. But that is also explained: they create a warmer, smoother, laid-back sound. And even though that might be what you want (for example, if you listen to jazz), that's not the "real" sound going through the amp, that's a colored version of it. And it's ok to like it - in fact stop liking something because it measured badly is pretty sad - but then what you like isn't the original product, it's a different version. 
 
On-topic: Beats suck yo

 

[DarkAudit]

According to the [H]ardOCP review, Monster doesn't want the specs for the Beats to get in the public's hands.

 

[nikp]

Subjectivists are a bit biased sometimes.
 
 
 

Beats sounds better because it costs more.

 
 

(Fake beats) Oh yeah, these sounded really good!!

 
 
Oh by the way, I think we have too many Beats bashing threads. Well, it's beats after all.

 

[Lan647]

I have a pair of beats Studios and while I don't think they SUCK, the electronic nature of the sound and the awful treble is what bothers me. With some music they work fine, with other they make me cry (in a bad way) 
 
The design is cool but build quality is a joke - seriously. 

 

[Blue Boat]

I saw some red LED things on Beats' cups. Pretty sweet, imo. 

 

[cozmert]

Quote:

A good can like the DT 770 shouldn't distort at loud volumes, check your source.

Well mine do... I'm using a iphone 4 with Fiio e11 attached to it. What do you think is it enough to drive Beyerdynamics? Oh by the way they are 80 ohms. I also use them at home with Yamaha a-s300.... Better, but still not loud enough it just distorts... Is it possible that i damaged them?

 

[PhoenixClaw]

I don't like it because I always get told Beats are better by people other than my audiophile friends, and no one bothers to listen about other headphones even though they're much cheaper and built better.

 

[moore1041]

a pair of dt770 pros in 250 ohm would be better in every aspect than the beats but not when paired with an amp like that. the beats sound decent because they are easier to drive, in general though everything about those beats suck. actually using a pair of those for a long time and then going to dt770's is like being slapped in the face by god. the only way they sound better than anything is for them to be plugged directly into an ipod or equivalent crappy source. And im saying this from experience as i have listened to both with different amps. the soundstage sucks more than anything imo though. get some flac audio with a good amp and then see the difference.